↓ Skip to main content

TRPM8 mechanism of autonomic nerve response to cold in respiratory airway

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Pain, June 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
TRPM8 mechanism of autonomic nerve response to cold in respiratory airway
Published in
Molecular Pain, June 2008
DOI 10.1186/1744-8069-4-22
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hong Xing, Jennifer X Ling, Meng Chen, Richard D Johnson, Makoto Tominaga, Cong-Yi Wang, Jianguo Gu

Abstract

Breathing cold air without proper temperature exchange can induce strong respiratory autonomic responses including cough, airway constriction and mucosal secretion, and can exacerbate existing asthma conditions and even directly trigger an asthma attack. Vagal afferent fiber is thought to be involved in the cold-induced respiratory responses through autonomic nerve reflex. However, molecular mechanisms by which vagal afferent fibers are excited by cold remain unknown. Using retrograde labeling, immunostaining, calcium imaging, and electrophysiological recordings, here we show that a subpopulation of airway vagal afferent nerves express TRPM8 receptors and that activation of TRPM8 receptors by cold excites these airway autonomic nerves. Thus activation of TRPM8 receptors may provoke autonomic nerve reflex to increase airway resistance. This putative autonomic response may be associated with cold-induced exacerbation of asthma and other pulmonary disorders, making TRPM8 receptors a possible target for prevention of cold-associated respiratory disorders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
France 1 2%
Vietnam 1 2%
Unknown 44 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 27%
Researcher 10 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Unspecified 1 2%
Student > Bachelor 1 2%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 14 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 21%
Neuroscience 7 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2014.
All research outputs
#7,355,930
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Pain
#153
of 669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,136
of 97,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Pain
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 97,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them